Policy Centre for Victims Issues

Latest updates

News and Events

Publications

Legislation

Funding

Frequently Asked Questions

Other Resources

5.0 Coping with Being a Crime Victim

5.1 Positive Coping Strategies

5.2 Negative Coping Strategies

5.3 Self-Efficacy

5.4The Basics…

Working with Victims of Crime: A Manual Applying Research to Clinical Practice

5.0 Coping with Being a Crime Victim

Workers should also be aware of how victims cope. Many different challenges face the victim: the shock of being a victim, dealing with the police/courts, reactions of others, returning to “normal”, feeling unsafe, self-blame and so on. Researchers note that victims don’t seem to return to precrime levels of distress, although they can manage to function relatively well (Hagemann, 1992; Norris et al., 1997; Resick et al. 2002). Although the passage of time may give the person the opportunity to return to a “normal” life, victimization appears to have long-lasting effects (Gilboa-Schechtman & Foa, 2001; Norris et al., 1997). By understanding coping options for victims, workers can help victims to use this time to explore options and learn new, more effective coping strategies. Also, monitoring the use of coping strategies helps workers to assess client progress because research shows that victims use coping techniques less and less as they get better (Calhoun & Atkeson, 1991).

Before discussing specific coping strategies, a key distinction is necessary. The research literature highlights the differences between positive and negative coping. Positive coping focuses on changing ourselves or dealing directly with the problem (e.g., social support, problem-solving efforts, seeking information). Negative coping generally does not focus on the stressor or our reaction (e.g., blaming others, withdrawal, resignation, self-criticism, aggression, wishful thinking, alcohol/drug use). Dempsey (2002) found that using negative coping strategies could make the person feel worse. To muddy the waters, some researchers have noted that certain coping strategies, such as avoidance or dissociation, may be helpful to deal with the initial shock but become more damaging as time passes (Hagemann, 1992; Harvey & Bryant, 2002; Ullman, 1999). In fact, workers could think of negative coping strategies as the victim hanging off a cliff holding onto a weak branch: it may not seem safe but until given another option he trusts, he will not let go! Workers need to work with the client to help him replace negative coping strategies with more positive options; not just remove negative coping. Remember, crime victims are a diverse group and workers need to assess each person to understand his particular reaction. Table 3 lists the common coping strategies that victim of crime might experience. Each one will be briefly discussed in turn.

Table 3: Common Coping Strategies

5.1 Positive Coping Strategies

Information seeking

Often victims of crime simply want information (Hagemann, 1992). Useful information might include details about the justice system, program options, common reactions and so forth (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992). Gathering information can also be a key part to helping the victim to decide between different treatment options or even whether to seek help (Prochaska et al., 1992).

Cognitive reframe of victimization: Self-comparison/emphasizing the positive aspects of having survived

In research on sexual assault victims, Hagemann (1992) noted that some victims feel better by focusing on how they are now survivors. Thompson (2000) noted that sexual assault victims may first embrace the term “victim” because it shows that the assault was not their fault. As they dealt with their experience, they switched to “survivor” because it reflects strength, recovery and being a fighter. This seemed to help some victims regain control over their lives. When dealing with tough situations, people often need to make sense of what happened and then search for some personal benefit, no matter how negative the event (Davis et al., 1998).

Put into lay terms, this point means: “That which does not kill you, makes you stronger.” Successfully getting through a difficult situation seems to help victims see themselves as strong (Thompson, 2000) and the tougher the situation the greater the effect (McFarland & Alvaro, 2000). In fact, people will often see themselves as much weaker before the event, even if that is not true (McFarland & Alvaro, 2000). This may be in an effort to see benefit in an obviously difficult situation (Davis et al., 1998).

Cognitive reframe of victimization: Social comparison

Victims will often compare themselves to other victims in an effort to make sense of what happened to them. They may use victims who are doing well as an inspiration to keep going (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992). This is a double-edged sword as they may also lose hope if they feel they can’t make this same progress. Victims may also compare themselves to other victims who are worse off. They may feel better that they weren’t victimized as badly as someone else and that they aren’t worse off (Hagemann, 1992; Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Thompson, 2000).

If other victims who are worse off aren’t available, victims will create fantasies of, “it-could-have-been-much-worse”. In these fantasies, they review the crime but add in even greater physical, emotional or personal damage (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992). This seems to help people gain perspective, and may even relate to a focus on the positive aspects of being a survivor (Thompson, 2000).

Activities in service of regaining control

Victims can also do things that make them feel more in control of their life. These empowerment activities might include victims of assault taking self-defence classes (Hagemann, 1992) or any crime victim laying charges and going to court (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992).

Activism

Some victims appear to heal themselves by becoming advocates or activists (Hagemann, 1992). They apply their experience to a social level, trying to change society so that it will create fewer victims or treat victims more fairly.

Use of social support

Crime victims often feel out of sorts (Casarez-Levison, 1992) and may seek others for support (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Leymann & Lindell, 1992; Norris et al., 1997). Research supports this activity, showing that people who get positive social support show better adjustment (Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999). Both natural supports (family, friends, etc.) and professional supports (police, lawyer, clergy, medical, mental health) can offer help to the victim. Although the decision regarding where to go for support lies with the victim, those who use natural supports are also more likely to seek professional help, especially if they felt positively supported (Norris et al., 1997). Supportive people may provide information, companionship, reality checks, emotional support and money or a safe place to live (Everly, Flannery & Mitchell, 2000).

Norris et al. (1997) noted that the victim benefits from talking to other people about her experience and feelings. Telling her story seems to help make sense of what happened and her emotions (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992). It may help her let go of troubling feelings or to get a “reality check” about her thoughts, actions and feelings (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Leymann & Lindell, 1992; Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999; Norris et al., 1997). Victims are often able to describe the type of support they want. Often we get caught up in providing the type of support we think victims need rather than asking them for guidance. The information in Table 4 will help workers think about support and match the victim’s needs to which type of support to provide.

Perceived versus actual support

It is important for workers to realize that both actual support (e.g., going to a support group or meeting with a counsellor) and perceived support (e.g., knowing help is available if it is needed) help victims cope. Perceived support results in reduced fear, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms (Norris et al., 1997; Ozer et al., 2003). A possible explanation for this interesting finding is that people need to know that they can get support if they want it and that others are concerned. Thus, even knowing that their local community has a victim services office may help many victims cope--- without ever accessing services ! Needless to say, receiving actual support is also helpful to victims (Norris et al. 1997; Ozer et al., 2003).

Professional versus natural supports

Victims report their natural supports as being more useful than professionals (Leymann & Lindell, 1992). However, workers and victims should be aware that those in the victim’s natural support system might be less able to deal with the challenges facing the victim. Natural supports may initially be helpful, but they can make mistakes or become overwhelmed with the intensity of helping the victim cope (Mikulincer, Florian & Weller, 1993; Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999). In the worst case, the victim’s natural supports may not believe him, causing even more distress (Leahy et al., 2003). In any case, the victim’s social network can “burnout” leaving him feeling isolated and misunderstood.

Look back at Table 4 and imagine a friend trying to be emotionally supportive when the victim wants only information. This mismatch could result in his not going to that friend (or others!) again because of feeling frustrated and misunderstood. Of note, we all have our own way of coping with victimization. If we try to get others to adopt our style of coping, then they may feel that they have not been heard (Nelson et al., 2002). Professionals should be less likely to impose their views on the victim and work to meet him “where he lives”. This is important because dealing with non-supportive people can add new layers of stress onto an already tough situation (Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999).

For these reasons, some victims may find it helpful to seek out professional support. In the ideal world, most professionals have training in listening, empathy, challenging and providing a range of therapeutic actions. Professionals should be better equipped to cope with repetitive stories and accounts. They should also be better able to identify and provide the specific support needed by the victim. Furthermore, victims do not need to be concerned about damaging the personal bond since the relationship is focused on dealing with the crime-related trauma.

5.2 Negative Coping Strategies

Avoidance: Active behavioural avoidance

Avoidance can show up as behavioural avoidance, such as staying in your apartment or taking time off work (Hagemann, 1992) or avoiding through self-medication, such as using alcohol, illegal drugs or overuse of prescription medication (Everly et al., 2000; Hagemann, 1992; Mezy, 1988; Wolkenstein & Sterman, 1998). Generally speaking, researchers agree that avoidance is a band-aid solution to the underlying trauma. However, initial avoidance of challenging situations may help the victim slowly build on small successes. In other words, initial avoidance may allow the victim to take time to “lick his wounds” and gather resources to rebuild his life and deal with other challenges (e. g., the criminal justice system). As he receives treatment focused on confronting his fear, he is likely to feel better. However, those who self-medicate to avoid their pain, etc. are likely to experience even greater challenges, since using alcohol/drugs can often interfere with decision-making and coping (Kilpatrick et al., 2003).

Avoidance: Denial and Self-deception

Acting as a type of psychological avoidance, denial and self-deception work to help victims temporarily erase the memories. Thompson (2000) discussed the active blocking of memories and feelings to help cope with overwhelming emotions. Stillwell and Baumeister (1997) indicated that people tend to bias their recall to make themselves appear more sympathetic. In researching trauma associated with living in a war zone, Mikulincer et al. (1993) found that people who cope by avoiding are more likely to deny or minimize their internal distress. Although these approaches may get in the way of help seeking, they may also lessen initial distress (Hagemann, 1992). Ullman (1999) agreed and indicated that although avoidance strategies are usually linked to greater problems, they could also be adaptive in helping the victim get through the initial trauma.

Avoidance: Dissociation

Dissociation is a clinical term that means that there is a break in the person’s normal way of thinking, his memory, identity, or how he sees his environment. This is similar to what most people might call “shock”. Although we all dissociate to some degree, the use of dissociation to cope seems to be more common in people with a history of frequent and severe traumatic experiences (Martínez-Taboas & Bernal, 2000). Workers need to remember that dissociation is a normal, adaptive way of dealing with trauma. Harvey and Bryant (2002) also indicated that naturally occurring dissociation might help the victim cope with the initial trauma by getting in the way of recording memories during the crime. This cognitive change allows the victim to forget difficult elements of the crime or trauma and may result in reduced distress.

Dissociation can also be a negative coping strategy when used for too long. Ozer et al. (2003) indicated that those who experience dissociation either during or immediately after a traumatic experience were more likely to develop PTSD. They noted that this link was most evident in those who later wanted mental health services. Halligan, Michael, Clark and Ehlers (2003) indicated that specific elements of dissociation, namely emotional numbing, confusion/altered time sense and moodiness/impulsivity, were more related to PTSD. They found that emotional numbing and confusion likely interfere most with dealing with the trauma. Further, others have noted that prolonged dissociation can interfere with the healing process or treatment (Bromberg, 2003). Thus, dissociation may be a double-edged sword; it may help in the short-term, but could place the victim at increased risk for later problems.

Confrontation: Cognitively Narrowing the Focus

Holman and Silver (1998) pointed out that when people are presented with complex stimuli, their ability to process the information is weakened. Thus, they may slow down time in their head to cope with everything that is going on. These authors point out that this should help them adapt, but some people become overly focused on the traumatic event, ignoring everything else (Holman & Silver, 1998). This change in consciousness is similar to dissociation (Bromberg, 2003), but the focus is on trying to deal with the stressor rather than gnoring it. Further, Greenberg and Ruback (1992) found that arousal, specifically anger, resulted in improved recall. Thus, focused arousal may allow the victim to pay closer attention to the specifics of the crime. However, this focus may cause problems as the person works to move beyond the victimization experience because he is unable to focus on other aspects of his life.

5.3 Self-Efficacy

Researchers have identified self-efficacy as a characteristic that may make people less likely to develop a severe reaction to being victimized (Thompson, Kaslow, Short & Wyckoff, 2002). According to theory, people make choices based on their beliefs about their ability to control outcomes (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is a merging of self-esteem with a belief that you can affect your environment. This is similar to confidence and opposite to learned-helplessness and feeling that everyone else controls your life and decisions. Basically, victims who believe they can successfully handle the crisis (self-efficacy) will have more positive thoughts, emotions and behaviours. Importantly, whether they are successful is less important than their confidence that they will be successful (Bandura, 1997). Over a lifetime, however, building up successes will increase self-efficacy and confidence. Contrast this to a lifetime of failure that decreases self-efficacy and challenges clients as they try to use new skills. For example, those who feel that they will receive help if they ask often feel better ( Mikulincer et al., 1993) . Thus, self-efficacy can play a central role in coping with trauma and help seeking.

The role of self-efficacy in victimization may be best explained with an example. A victim of domestic violence may choose not to leave an abusive partner because of a belief that she cannot change her life or do well on her own (low self-efficacy). However, her experience of several “honeymoon” periods (times where her partner is on his best behaviour) gives her some confidence that she may be able to influence his behaviour, making things better. For example, she may have confidence (high self-efficacy) that she can keep their home stress-free by keeping the kids quiet and not bothering him after work. This confidence will increase the chance that she will stay in a potentially life threatening situation because she feels more in control of that situation.

In research on self-efficacy and battered women, Thompson et al. (2002) noted that helping women develop high levels of self-efficacy about living skills might increase the chance they would leave their relationship. As the woman becomes more confident about being able to build a social network and take care of herself and her children outside the relationship, she might begin to change her view of her current relationship. This challenges the “isolation” factor that one often sees in domestic violence relationships. Many treatments for victims include activities that require the victim to confront and successfully deal with difficult memories and emotions or learn and practice new skills (Nishith et al., 2002; Resick et al., 2002).

Self-efficacy may also explain coping choices. Bandura (1997) indicated that self-efficacy is key to changing behaviour because our perceptions of efficacy influence the use, intensity, and duration of coping behaviours. As stated above, self-efficacy develops out of previous successful experiences and is part of the victims learning history. Learning, experience and self-efficacy will influence what specific coping skills the victim will use. For example, if learning has shown her that dissociation is the best coping strategy, then it increases the chance that the victim will use it in new situations. This is especially true if other strategies have failed. On the other hand, if the person has had success in receiving support from others, she is more likely to employ that strategy. Workers may recognize this in action when they see a client returning to old patterns, even when she knows that these old coping strategies do not work. To the victim this is returning to coping strategies that have worked for her in the past. New coping strategies have much “catch-up” to do to balance these poor choices. However, successful clinical programs often include elements of self-efficacy in helping victims, through focusing on challenges, successes and practicing new skills (Nishith et al., 2002; Resick et al., 2002).

5.4 The Basics…

Coping

• When victims’ lives are upset by a crime, they will try to cope in the best way they know how.
• Coping strategies can be divided into positive strategies and negative strategies. Using negative strategies can make the victim feel worse (Dempsey, 2002).
• Table 3 lists the different coping strategies often used by victims.

Positive Coping: Social Support

• Social support is very important for many victims as they try to make sense of their victimization (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Leymann & Lindell, 1992; Norris et al., 1997).
• Victims find support from their family and friends more useful than support from professionals (Leymann & Lindell, 1992).
• Victims need to known that support is available, even if they do not access it (Norris et al., 1997; Ozer et al., 2003).
• Supports can be a key source of information (Hagemann, 1992).
• Professional supports could be important when family and friends are overwhelmed (Mikulincer et al., 1993; Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999).

Table 3: Common Coping Strategies

Negative Coping: Avoidance

• Avoidance, either through drugs, avoiding locations, denial or dissociation is a common way victims cope with overwhelming emotions (Bromberg, 2003; Everly et al., 2000; Hagemann, 1992; Mezy, 1988; Thompson, 2000; Wolkenstein & Sterman, 1998).
• Although avoidance may help the victim deal with initial distress (Hagemann, 1992; Harvey & Bryant, 2002; Ullman, 1999), it is linked to long-term problems (Bromberg, 2003; Halligan et al., 2003; Ozer et al., 2003; Ullman, 1999).
• Avoidance through the use of drugs and alcohol can interfere with decision-making and problem solving, which creates even greater challenges to positive healing.

Self-Efficacy

• Self-efficacy is a merging of self-esteem with a belief that you can change your environment (Bandura, 1997). Basically, people who believe they can successfully handle the crisis (self-efficacy) will have more positive thoughts, emotions and behaviours.
• High self-efficacy may reduce the chances that the victim will have a negative reaction to trauma (Thompson, Kaslow, Short & Wyckoff, 2002).
• Self-efficacy can affect coping choices by people picking those coping strategies that they feel will succeed (Bandura, 1997).
• Successful treatment programs include elements of building self-efficacy to help victims (Nishith et al., 2002; Resick et al., 2002).

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page